Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> MINUTES <br /> <br /> CITY COUNCIL <br /> <br /> OCTOBER 27, 2010 <br /> Upon motion by Keis, seconded by Montour, the public hearing was <br /> closed. <br /> Mr. Keis introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: <br /> RESOLUTIONNO. 2010-10-263 -APPROVING THEAMENDMENT <br /> TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR OUTDOOR STORAGE UP <br /> TO THE MAXIMUMALLOWED BY CODE FOR 3171 SPRUCE <br /> STREET SUBJECT TO COMPLIANCE WITH THE <br /> RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER <br /> OUTLINED IN HER REPORT DATED OCTOBER 6, 2010 <br /> The foregoing resolution was duly seconded by McGraw. <br /> Ayes (5). <br /> Nays (0). Resolution declared adopted. <br /> CUP - Blesener opened the Public Hearing to consider the request by Gary <br /> 2829 NOEL and Nancy Andert for a Conditional Use Permit for total garage space <br /> DRIVE - over 1,000 square feet (existing detached garage is approximately 960 <br /> ANDERT square feet and the proposed attached garage is approximately 484 square <br /> feet) for their property located at 2829 Noel Drive. It was noted that both <br /> the City Planner and the Planning Commission recommended approval <br /> subject to conditions. <br /> The City Planner reported that Mr. and Mrs. Andert are putting an addition <br /> onto their home, and that addition includes an attached garage. There is <br /> already a detached garage on the property. The combination of the two <br /> garages will exceed 1,000 square feet; therefore, a Conditional Use Permit <br /> is required. The Planner noted that the Code states that a detached garage <br /> in the rear yard of a properly cannot take up over 10% of the rear yard. <br /> The Andert detached garage does take up over 10% of the rear yard. 'T'his <br /> issue was discussed at the Planning Commission meeting, and an option <br /> would be that the property owner attaches the house and the garage via a <br /> breezeway. The detached garage would then be considered a part of the <br /> principle structure and the rear yard requirement is no longer in play. The <br /> applicant was agreeable to doing this. Based on that, the Planning <br /> Commission recommended approval of the Conditional Use Permit. <br /> McGraw noted that the applicant is proposing a remodel and addition to <br /> the existing house. The Planner replied that that was correct. He noted <br /> that in first reviewing the proposal he incorrectly assumed that the existing <br /> house would be demolished and a new house constructed. <br /> 5 <br /> <br />